Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The supreme court is suposed to decide the legality of legislation based on the letter of the law as written in the constitution, not based on personal or political agendas and affiliations as they do.
The constitution says quite clearly that the right to keep & bear arms can not be infringed. That means to own & carry arms, not just guns but knives & other arms. Its not even clear that it doesn't protect a right to artillery given that early militia were required to have field pieces.
But that aside its clearly unconstitutional to outright ban the carrying of guns as has been done is places like DC, NYC, Chicago & the entire state of Illinois.
They can regulate things without infringing on them. You need a permit to assemble in some cases but for the most part a group of people can go anywhere they choose together. You need a license to run a newspaper but anybody can print out fliers & hand them out as they see fit.
In the same way a person should be free to carry a gun wherever & whenever they want right up until they break a real law. Just as a group can walk around DC but cannot attack people and a person can hand out pamphlets but not sell them.
Its pretty funny really to see otherwise intelligent people lose their sense of right & wrong because they have been told up is down and right is left for so long.
Do you know why the Constitution is not rigidly interpreted? Because the Founding Fathers did not intend for it to be.
Ever notice how it outlines broad rights and privileges, but gets really vague about drawing the lines and boundaries on them? That's on purpose.
They intended the Constitution to be a guide, not a checklist.
Do you know why the Constitution is not rigidly interpreted? Because the Founding Fathers did not intend for it to be.
Ever notice how it outlines broad rights and privileges, but gets really vague about drawing the lines and boundaries on them? That's on purpose.
They intended the Constitution to be a guide, not a checklist.
Not exactly true & I think you know it. In the cases where they wanted to allow discretion it is evident. Where they did not it is also evident. There is a very good reason that most restrictive gun laws are state & municipal laws, the feds KNOW they cannot do it and they turn a blind eye when the states and municipalities do instead of treating it like the civil rights violation it surely is. Can you imagine the outcry if DC banned people based on race or religion? There is no difference.
In any event they certainly did not want it outright ignored as is the case regarding the second amendment in the places I mention. DC's gun law attitude applied to the 1st would have it a felony to speak in the district unless you were a cop.
It is a guide and its intended to keep legislators from taking away rights.
Can you explain to us how the second amendment guided DC's legislature in regards to handguns or even long guns? Or how about NYC or Illinois?
Not to own but to carry (bear) you do. Only two states allow the unrestricted carry of a handgun, Alaska & Vermont. Many others allow open carry in theory but few in practice.
Yes, I know. I have a carry permit, and I think anyone who wants to carry a firearm in public should get qualified to do so. Much like a driver licence. Otherwise you'll have daddies buying 45 semis to their kids and they simply load them and tuck them under their belts and run off to school to show they their buddies. Where is the sense in that?
Not exactly true & I think you know it. In the cases where they wanted to allow discretion it is evident. Where they did not it is also evident. There is a very good reason that most restrictive gun laws are state & municipal laws, the feds KNOW they cannot do it and they turn a blind eye when the states and municipalities do instead of treating it like the civil rights violation it surely is. Can you imagine the outcry if DC banned people based on race or religion? There is no difference.
In any event they certainly did not want it outright ignored as is the case regarding the second amendment in the places I mention. DC's gun law attitude applied to the 1st would have it a felony to speak in the district unless you were a cop.
It is a guide and its intended to keep legislators from taking away rights.
Can you explain to us how the second amendment guided DC's legislature in regards to handguns or even long guns? Or how about NYC or Illinois?
Outright bans are obviously illegal, as the Court upheld. But your statement is disingenuous. There is a huge difference between banning people based on race or religion and banning handguns.
My statement was more targeted to people like GuyNTexas who think that it begins and ends with the exact wording of the Constitution, no more or less.
Are you saying "most people" want to live in those states because of the more restrictive gun control laws?
Certainly very few people are drawn to the first five states. More people live in California alone that those 5 states together. California must be doing something right.
Certainly very few people are drawn to the first five states. More people live in California alone that those 5 states together. California must be doing something right.
They must be, aside from going broke and having people flee the state in droves.
Its pretty funny really to see otherwise intelligent people lose their sense of right & wrong because they have been told up is down and right is left for so long.
True. People can presume their right to bear arms entitles them to a nuclear arsenal in their back yard because an expressed limit wasn't spelled out by founders who knew nothing about wmd capacity. Back in a time when men settled their differences with a duel instead of hiding behind the skirts of women or using children as human shields.
Stuck on stupid applies to both sides of these arguments, so don't think you're on moral high ground entirely. Becomes a no brainer when you substitute the word 'rights' for responsibility. Each one of those rights is a responsibility, and some really aren't up to the task. Licensing isn't that much of a burden and I'd vote against outrageous fees. Neither side of this argument deserves a blank check.
A license to own a gun was create to "protect" the government and people for political reasons. People died from people shooting other people. Kids died and with children "dying" comes LAWS! Government has created a law to appear to be fore safety reasons. Other then that government just doesnt trust people with guns.
Guns can be dangerous, so can knives, cars, planes, fire etc.
Yes, I know. I have a carry permit, and I think anyone who wants to carry a firearm in public should get qualified to do so. Much like a driver licence. Otherwise you'll have daddies buying 45 semis to their kids and they simply load them and tuck them under their belts and run off to school to show they their buddies. Where is the sense in that?
Why would you say that? Its not like that in either of the states that require no permit whatsoever nor is it like that in places where open carry is common. Simply because you can imagine a world of irresponsible redneck gun slingers doesn't mean its true. The facts speak for themselves.
You also ignore federal law forbidding handgun ownership for minors as well as the fact that handguns are forbidden in schools by federal law.
A drivers license is entirely different for a multitude of reasons, one being operating a motor vehicle is not a right. But you can own & posess a car without a license. You only need a license to USE one at will in public. To make the two similar a licensed gun owner should be able to plink on Main St. I'm not suggesting people should, but the mere possesion of a gun is nowhere near as dangerous as driving a car.
By an overwhelming majority the most violent crime ridden areas of our country have the strictest gun control. In VT or AK your best chance at getting shot is a hunting accident. In DC, NYC, Chicago etc its from violent crime, or the cops.
There is a federal law ... it's called the 2nd amendment, and it includes carrying one around on your hip .... "the right of the people to keep (possess, own) and bear arms (carry, display openly) shall not be infringed".
And the constitution also forbids states from violating those rights protected by the constitution.
Unfortunately, and contrary to someone else's earlier claim, most of the gun laws have been promoted by the federal government ... Federal Licensees, Brady Bill, Assault weapons bans, etc.
The many states have only been too willing to go along and add restrictions of their own, given the failure of the federal government and the courts to uphold the constitution.
But the 2nd amendment isn't the only violation ... there is no constitution insofar as practice is concerned. The Congress, the President, and multiple agencies are violating the constitution on a daily basis.
The reason is simple. We have a federal government as well as many state governments that are criminal and lawless, demanding that the people observe and abide by the law, while refusing to do so itself. The proper definition of this is "tyranny".
So you would have no problem with ANYONE, children included since they are US citizens carrying guns? I mean since you do not feel there should be any restrictions it is all in or nothing.
Casper
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
